HEMRAJ SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), KOTA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the discrepancy in the date of entry was an inadvertent mistake and not a reason to treat the amount as unexplained. Since the receipt of income and the withdrawal of cash by the intermediary were not doubted, the addition was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a commission agent for vegetables, had his case reopened. The AO added Rs. 29,39,000/- to the assessee's income, treating payments recorded on November 23, 2009, as unexplained, as cash was withdrawn by the intermediary on November 24-25, 2009.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 29,39,000/- as unexplained income is justified when the date of entry in books was prior to the date of cash withdrawal by the intermediary.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 340/JP/2017
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 340/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke Shri Hemraj Saini I.T.O. Ward-2(3), Alwar Vs. Prop: M/s. Hemraj Sohanlal C/o Shri O.P Agarwal, FCA H-8, Chittaranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BTOPS4097M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Manish Agawal, CA, ld.AR jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Miss Anuradha, JCIT, ld.DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/03/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 24 /04/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-22, Alwar dated 28/03/2017 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the matter of order passed U/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).
Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.
The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in the business of commission agent of vegetables in the name and style of M/s Hemraj Sohanlal. Return of Income for the year under appeal was filed on 11.02.2011 declaring total income at Rs.3,43,500/-. Subsequently, case of assessee was reopened by issue same income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1).
During the course of re-assessment proceedings the AO observed that the assessee had received payments on 24-11-09 and 25-11-09 to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs.13,39,000/- from Hanif Khan, who was looking after sale and distribution of vegetables. The AO further stated that assessee had made payment to its creditors on 23-11-09 whereas cash was received by the assessee on 24th & 25h Nov.’09. Accordingly, he concluded that payments so recorded by assessee on 23rd Nov.’09 i.e. one day prior is unexplained. Accordingly, he added Rs.29,39,000/- (Rs.16,00,000 + Rs. 13,39,000) in assessee’ s income, against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before me.
I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from record that assessee is a small businessman carrying on business of vegetables on commission basis, after obtaining the same in the auction conducted in Krishi mandi. In this business, the assessee was taking assistance of one, Shri Hanif Khan, who was looking after distribution of vegetables and collection from customers. In the course of re- assessment, the AO observed that Shri Hanif Khan has withdrawn account on 24-11-09 and 25-11-09 respectively, however, assessee had recorded this amount in his books on 23-11-09. Accordingly, the AO treated an amount of Rs.29,39,000/- as unexplained in the hands of assessee as on 23-11-2009. In this regard, the statement of Shri Hanif Khan was recorded, wherein he stated that he was looking after business of assessee, Shri Hemraj Saini and also having his own truck business in which he was carrying the vegetables. He further stated that the amount of Rs.16,00,000/- and Rs. 13,39,000/- was withdrawn by him from his bank account on 24th & 25th Nov., 09 respectively, which was handed over to the assessee as his sale proceeds. Thus, neither withdrawal of cash from the bank was doubted nor it was doubted that cash was handed over to assessee. Merely on the plea that entry was done by assessee in his books on 23rd Nove.’09, which is one day prior to the day of receipt, the AO has treated the same as unexplained. It appears that it was merely an inadvertent mistake of recording the receipt on 23-11-09 in place of 24th & 25th Nov., ‘ 09, which created entire confusion. To ascertain that the assessee has used this amount on 23-11-09 neither the AO nor the ld.CIT(A) made an enquiry with the person, to whom part of the amount was allegedly paid by assessee. It is also not in dispute that total amount of Rs.29,39,000/- (Rs.16,00,000 + Rs. 13,39,000/-) was received by the assessee against sale proceeds through Shri Hanif Khan, who used to situated outside and delivered the same to the assessee. The assessee has credited the same as his income when it was actually received by him and he was unaware of the fact from which sources Shri Hanif Khan has given the amount to him. Since Shri Hanif Khan was also doing his transport business merely because the withdrawal from his bank account was on 24th and 25th Nov.’09, it can not be presumed that Shri Hanif Khan was not having other amount in his hands. Thus, the totality of facts and circumstances indicate that it was merely an inadvertent mistake of entry in the books of account i.e one day prior, which has led to all the confusions. Since neither the receipt of amount as income is doubted nor withdrawal of amount by Shri Hanif Khan from his bank account is doubted, there is no reason for making any addition for this confusion. Accordingly, I direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.29,39,000/- ( Rs. 16,00,000 + Rs.13,39,000/-).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th …April, 2019.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026